All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[PaulBullion]

The electorate was on board well before Democrats were.

You're probably too young to remember that, but George W. Bush basically won re-election by running against gay marriage. Do you have any polls that say there was suddenly a majority in favor of it by 2008?

[PaulBullion]

It's pretty astounding that Republicans had the public convinced in 2004 that all Democrats were for marriage equality, and now #30 thinks Newsom was the only one. Breathtaking.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Vito Barbieri, of the Idaho House of Representatives, who has voted to nullify federal firearms laws and the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. But Barbieri is far more interesting for all of the ways he wants to regulate a woman's reproductive system, such as allow an employer to deny birth control coverage to an employee on their health insurance plan, or to require medically unnecessary ultrasounds prior to a woman having an abortion. His campaign website denies the existence of a separation between church and state, calls public schools a "godless institution", tries to remedy that by passing unconstitutional legislation to have the Bible authorized to be used as a textbook in schools, and he expresses paranoid concerns about the United Nations' Agenda 21 environmental treaty. In the middle of the state legislature about the latter issue, Barbieri showed how ignorant he is on the issue by asking the doctor giving testimony if a gynecological exam could be performed by having a woman orally swallow the camera, and have it reach the vagina for photos. (We wish that was a joke.)

Since we last left Vito Barbieri, he managed to vote for an attempt by Idaho Republicans to pass a ban on judges making rulings based on “foreign laws”, which you might recognize as another coded attempt at banning Sharia Law, which is absolutely not a thing that judges are referencing in this country. To make him even more suspicious of a lawmaker, Barbieri also sponsored legislation that would make his texts and e-mails as a legislator confidential and to keep them secret from the public (please note that this would not exclude communication between lawmakers and lobbyists). Maybe the fact that Barbieri seems to have confirmed he has things to hide, and wants that to be legal should be enough to convince voters to not vote for im in 2018 when his seat is up again.

[Dalak]

That was ONE politician off the top of my head, turnip breath. It is called an "example." Google that word.

It's quite a stretch to claim that there were no others. Your hatred for Democrats is what is laughable.

Yup, it's quite telling that the only possible reason he can comprehend for people in the past 100 years not voting is (cheesy scary voice) DEMOCRATS.



Uh, Why are we doing colors now?

[BeastieRunner]

Uh, Why are we doing colors now?

Fuck yeah! It makes this thread FABULOUS!

[PaulBullion]

Isn't #30 from Illinois? Then he probably should have known that Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley was also at the forefront of the marriage equality struggle more than a decade ago:
"They love each other, just as much as anyone else. They believe that the benefits they don't have, they should have. And so I have a very open mind on it."

[PaulBullion]

Volatile trading on Wall Street again. DJI down 100 points now, after being down 250 (or 1%) earlier.

[worstblogever]

Isn't #30 from Illinois? Then he probably should have known that Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley was also at the forefront of the marriage equality struggle more than a decade ago:
"They love each other, just as much as anyone else. They believe that the benefits they don't have, they should have. And so I have a very open mind on it."

Maybe they didn't notice. Or maybe they've demonstrated an absurd tendency to disingenuously represent their own political opinions, as well as conveniently omit or edit facts to fit their irrational narratives.

Could be either, I suppose.

[Dalak]

Fuck yeah! It makes this thread FABULOUS!

Isn't #30 from Illinois? Then he probably should have known that Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley was also at the forefront of the marriage equality struggle more than a decade ago:
"They love each other, just as much as anyone else. They believe that the benefits they don't have, they should have. And so I have a very open mind on it."

It's sad but prevalent everywhere nowadays: Facts that don't support narratives get ignored by those spreading them. For example, on twitter today I saw IronStache being arrested and fined for a protest along with several others compared to Putin jailing his political allies.

E:

Maybe they didn't notice. Or maybe they've demonstrated an absurd tendency to disingenuously represent their own political opinions, as well as conveniently omit or edit facts to fit their irrational narratives.

Could be either, I suppose.

Or that. That's a good one

[Mister Mets]

The fact that he would equate environmentalists and religious minorities (such as Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc) on the "left" with the bigots and racists on the "right" speaks volumes.

The party of the majority (cis white straight Christians) will attract members of nasty majority groups. It's a bit of a category error to suggest I'm comparing bigots to Muslims and environmentalists. I talked about crazies within larger groups, and organized bigots would mainly be a subset of a larger group (straight cis white people) just as the people willing to give financial aid to Islamic terrorists would be a subset of the larger group of Muslims.

As a note, we could add antifa to the list of bad Democratic groups.

That's kind of good marketing though. As Mets pointed out, you couldn't get a Democrat to be caught dead on stage supporting gay marriage in Obama's first election. The party itself didn't really make the shift until over half the country supported it and it became politically safe to do so and by that point it was just a matter of time. As far as healtcare, as Democrats loved to point out in 2012, the absolute best case of affordable health care in any state in the country occurred in MA under Republican governor Mitt Romney. I'll give you gun control, but Democrats are terribly inept cowards at it and either don't know enough about the issue to push anything meaningful or are too timid to push anything impact because they are scared of Republicans, if Democrats were serious they would have done something on it.

For the most parts it's just scraps they throw the base.

To be entirely fair, there are legitimate arguments for why Democrats would have been strategically inactive on these key issues. They're not going to be in a position to make a difference if they don't win elections, so it makes sense to avoid topics until a majority on their side. There are clear downsides to their approach (activists might be pissed off, conservatives have a talking point about how Democrats aren't willing to tell voters what they really believe, Democrats are unable to push the country on an issue and just play catch-up) though a key moral question is whether it really would do any good for Democrats to be on the vanguard. Will people come on board to a topic because Democratic officials are there, or will it just cost the party votes? We're seeing this a bit now with Democrats taking some extreme (in the sense that it goes against the polls) positions against voter ID, and in favor of late-term abortion, which will give a test for whether this is helpful (perhaps getting voters who are with the party on other issues to appreciate the wisdom of an unpopular position; activists could be more excited), whether it hurts and by how much (it might be worth it to have a smaller US House majority with a mandate on key issues than a larger majority that lacks the mandate), or whether it makes no discernible difference at all (in which case it's still strategically useful from a policy perspective).

[Mister Mets]

Again -- these aren't complex issues -- they are simply divisive issues.

The Democratic party and "liberals" (like Obama) -- generally speaking -- support gay rights, abortion rights, the Voting Rights Act, affordable health care for all, and gun control legislation.

Republicans and "conservatives" (like Pence) -- generally speaking -- do not.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/De..._vs_Republican

Even Trump recognizes this simple truth, which is why he was able to play the Republican party like a fiddle last election.

Moreover, I notice that you failed to address how the Republican party wasted trillions of dollars and destroyed thousands of lives with the Iraq War while simultaneously presiding over one of the worst recessions in our nation's history the last time they were in power, and how Republicans paved the way for Trump to take office and are now doing nothing to prevent further Russian meddling in our elections.

If abortion were not a complex issue, then the inherent value of a fetus is minimal. An injury that results in a miscarriage would be seen as the equivalent of a broken leg. I think most people would dispute that.

I haven't addressed the War in Iraq and the Recession, partly because it didn't come up organically. You mentioned it in a response to a post on other topics (abortion, voting rights, healthcare, gun laws, gay marriage.)

With the wars in the Middle East, there is a legitimate argument that these places just weren't ready for Democracy and that it was better if a dictator kept the people in line. This wasn't the position that a lot of people were willing to take. That meant that the arguments were generally about other stuff (Should Saddam Hussein be in power? Did he pose a threat to the world?) and that the major subtext was avoided. The wars largely occurred with good intentions, part of a larger movement that probably did more good than bad. George W Bush has recently risen out of the bottom ten of the list of Presidents largely due to a renewed understanding of his use of foreign aid, which has helped net a significant reduction in extreme poverty. He was listed as one of the most underrated Presidents by Thinkprogress.

https://thinkprogress.org/five-most-...an-presidents/

The recession wasn't just due to deregulation, and came for a variety of reasons, including actions by Democrats (a push for home ownership and increased financing during the Clinton administration for people who couldn't afford it) and ordinary people (household debt doubled, largely among lower and middle class Americans who were vulnerable to changes in the Housing market.)

Since it does seem that you feel comfortable asking fairly complex questions of people you interact with online, I do have some for you about your positions, and those of Democrats (and I get that these may be different):

What limits should we have on immigration, and how would these be enforced? At what point would immigrants have the benefits of citizens (voters rights, access to benefits)?

How should legislative seats be allocated? To be clear, how do we determine the borders for congressional/ state legislative districts? And if an independent body is involved, what standard should they use?

Heitkamp, Backing Deregulation Bill, Owns Stock in Financial Firms that Stand to Profit

She, Donelly, Manchin, etc have got to go.
Corruption 101

That's going to make it pretty difficult for Democrats to get back the majority.

Beto O’Rourke wins Democratic Primary in Texas after rejecting donations from super PACS





https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/bet...ns-super-pacs/

He was a Congressman running against nobodies, and a third of the primary voters still went with others.

Someone who takes orders from Putin.

Or someone who never got the order, but figured it would please Putin.

VA knew for years about problems at Washington, D.C., hospital that left patients in danger

This might be the main reason Shulkin still has his job. The VA has been a shit-show for years, and he was credited with doing effective work in overhauling it.

If Gavin Newsom wins the election and becomes California's next Governor, he's going to run for President someday.

Is it an if at this point?

Newsom seems to be the overwhelming favorite in what is looking to be a good year for Democrats, especially in California.

[Dalak]

He was a Congressman running against nobodies, and a third of the primary voters still went with others.

How many non-famous representatives do you know that aren't yours? I don't think many people know any. Regardless: He got my vote last night and with the money he has already gotten he'll be able to spread that name recognition statewide well before November. And if Ted Cruz' stupid new song ad is anything to go by I'll bet on Beto making this a close race at least.

[Kevinroc]

Is it an if at this point?

Newsom seems to be the overwhelming favorite in what is looking to be a good year for Democrats, especially in California.

Don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, as they say.

[aja_christopher]

If abortion were not a complex issue, then the inherent value of a fetus is minimal. An injury that results in a miscarriage would be seen as the equivalent of a broken leg. I think most people would dispute that.

I haven't addressed the War in Iraq and the Recession, partly because it didn't come up organically. You mentioned it in a response to a post on other topics (abortion, voting rights, healthcare, gun laws, gay marriage.)

With the wars in the Middle East, there is a legitimate argument that these places just weren't ready for Democracy and that it was better if a dictator kept the people in line. This wasn't the position that a lot of people were willing to take. That meant that the arguments were generally about other stuff (Should Saddam Hussein be in power? Did he pose a threat to the world?) and that the major subtext was avoided. The wars largely occurred with good intentions, part of a larger movement that probably did more good than bad. George W Bush has recently risen out of the bottom ten of the list of Presidents largely due to a renewed understanding of his use of foreign aid, which has helped net a significant reduction in extreme poverty. He was listed as one of the most underrated Presidents by Thinkprogress.

https://thinkprogress.org/five-most-...an-presidents/

The recession wasn't just due to deregulation, and came for a variety of reasons, including actions by Democrats (a push for home ownership and increased financing during the Clinton administration for people who couldn't afford it) and ordinary people (household debt doubled, largely among lower and middle class Americans who were vulnerable to changes in the Housing market.)

Since it does seem that you feel comfortable asking fairly complex questions of people you interact with online, I do have some for you about your positions, and those of Democrats (and I get that these may be different):

What limits should we have on immigration, and how would these be enforced? At what point would immigrants have the benefits of citizens (voters rights, access to benefits)?

How should legislative seats be allocated? To be clear, how do we determine the borders for congressional/ state legislative districts? And if an independent body is involved, what standard should they use?

The issue at hand isn't about whether abortion itself is "complex" but whether a woman should have the right to choose to have one -- either you agree that she should have said choice (most Democrats/liberals) or you don't (most Republicans/conservatives): the lines are pretty clearly drawn, regardless of the details involved, which is why most people simply refer to the issue as "pro-choice" or "pro-life".

And I've brought up the Iraq War and The Great Recession at least three times previously, and at least once before in an entirely separate post from the others. "Organically" or not, I did bring it up as one of the key problems with supporting the modern Republican party -- the Bush Administration specifically -- and you didn't respond to it at all. I understand if you overlooked it, or saw it as unimportant, but let's not pretend I didn't ask you directly how you could justify said (Republican) administration's actions.

So basically, your response is that they had "good intentions" -- which is highly debatable given Iraq (and Iran)'s oil reserves and how much money went to private contractors with Republican ties (like Blackwater, Haliburton and Lockheed Martin). I could go into a lot more detail on all of Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney's ties to these companies -- and many others -- but I won't bother because at the end of the day if you waste trillions of taxpayer dollars and destroy thousands of innocent lives just because you had "good intentions" then maybe your "intentions" weren't really so good to begin with, especially when afterwards you have to delete thousands of CIA files on torture and other questionable activities to avoid being held accountable for war crimes.

Let's be real -- Cheney and Rumsfield were war profiteers who masked their crimes under the umbrella of "regime change" (PNAC specifically) and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade an oil-rich nation that posed no real strategic threat to the United States of America, especially given the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were -- like Bin Laden -- from Saudi Arabia . You can try to spin it however you want to but the results (trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted, thousands of lives lost and a country still dealing with unspeakable terrorist violence) speak for themselves -- and to be honest, it's a bit sickening that you would try to argue that the virtual destruction of an entire nation and the completely unnecessary death of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians was "probably more good than bad" as a whole.

With regards to the Recession, yes there were more factors involved, but deregulation was at the root of much of the problem, and your weak attempt to pin it on "Democrats" when it happened under a Republican administration that was far more concerned with cutting taxes on the wealthy than ensuring that America maintained a stable, balanced economy is just ridiculous -- again, let's keep it simple: Republicans talk a good game about balanced budgets and a strong economy, but they rarely if ever hold themselves and the corporations that they serve accountable for their actions: the banks knew they could get away with murder under the Bush Administration and that's exactly what they did.

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

"The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was characterized by significant income tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the implementation of Medicare Part D in 2003, increased military spending for two wars, a housing bubble that contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008, and the Great Recession.

The U.S. fiscal position changed dramatically for the worse during the Bush years. CBO projected in its January 2001 baseline that the U.S. would have a total of $5.6 trillion in annual surpluses over the 2002-2011 decade, assuming the laws in place during the Clinton era continued and the economy performed as expected. However, the actual deficits during those years ended up being $6.1 trillion, a negative swing of $11.7 trillion. Two recessions, two wars, and tax cuts were the primary drivers of the differences."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...administration

With regards to immigration -- I believe in creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants at this point as that will provide more tax benefits to America as a whole. I have no problem with the enforcement of immigration laws in general, but locking up and/or deporting people who have been living here for decades is not a realistic solution, nor is it the best way forward with regards to our economy. Personally, I also feel that it is the most humane solution to the issue at hand but I think the more valid reason -- with regards to this discussion -- is because it is also a much more economically viable option than the mass incarceration and deportation of undocumented immigrants.

As far as the other questions are concerned (What limits should we have on immigration, and how would these be enforced? At what point would immigrants have the benefits of citizens (voters rights, access to benefits? How should legislative seats be allocated? To be clear, how do we determine the borders for congressional/ state legislative districts? And if an independent body is involved, what standard should they use?) I'm willing to admit that those are issues that will require more time to consider than I have at this moment, but -- generally speaking -- I feel that the Democratic approach (DACA, path to citizenship, protecting voting rights through government legislation, etc) is much more conducive to a thriving democracy than trying to incarcerate and/or deport people who were brought here as children and gerrymandering districts and purging African-Americans and others from the voting rolls just so you can win elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rolina-florida

You might disagree with this, but that's to be expected.

[BeastieRunner]

So, in reading this article I found out that Josh Raffel and Reed Cordish are leaving now, too.

WBE ... take it away!

BTW: that's 43% of senior staff now, an all-time record.